# [00:06] <jgraham> I don't think that standards organisations should be compelled to produce a unique tehnology for each use case; that was the thinking that led to HTML being abandoned in the first place

# [00:14] <othermaciej> we're far away from having agreement in the HTML Working Group that it's clear that one technology is better (even though many individual WG members feel one or the other is clearly better)

# [00:43] <Dashiva> The color picker in Aion Online only reacted to clicks, you couldn't click and drag to the edge, so it was really hard to hit edge/corner values like pure black

# [00:43] <othermaciej> Dashiva: but the OS X color picker dialog gives you a wide range of ways to pick colors, including by RGB clides, CMYK sliders, hue/saturation wheel plus luminosity slider, picking from an image, or selecting one of a number of predefined colors from a box of crayons

# [00:44] <othermaciej> (also you can drag a color onto the color well control w/o even popping up a dialog)

# [01:30] <TabAtkins> othermaciej: Sorry for the curtness on the lists. >_< Really didn't intend to be rude; I just shouldn't have responded at all. It was an obviously provocative statement that didn't deserve a response.

# [03:36] <TabAtkins> erlehmann: There are many sensible options. The spec's suggest <p> and <b> method would work just fine. Ideally I might mark up the speaker with a <hx> and give it display:run-in.

# [11:02] <Lachy> I don't get how Shelley can complain about the size of the spec being too large, and yet get all worked up about people suggesting that some features will end up being deferred to a future revision of HTML.

# [11:23] <Hixie> it's probably similar to how she thinks that the "most compelling" argument for something she agrees with is my opinion, but that if she disagrees with something, that my opinion is worthless

# [12:08] <roc> Hixie: isn't that common? If my enemy agrees with me *even though* he is evil, that is clearly strong evidence of the universal appeal of my position. On other hand, if my enemy disagrees with me, then that is only because he is evil.

# [17:39] <Lachy> the problem seems to be that proponents believe those to be the ultimate solution and are unwilling to accept any alternative solution, regardless of any evidence presented, nor evaluation of them against the use cases and problems they solve

# [17:55] <mpilgrim> "Also, <img> was reintroduced to XHTML 2, no doubt after a vigorous and healthy debate in which all parties treated each other with mutual respect. But now it has a different content model than <img> in XHTML 1 and HTML 4, which just goes to show that mutual respect is for chumps."

# [23:48] <AryehGregor> jgraham, given the choice between using RDFa and using nothing, many people would use nothing. Except when RDFa is the only thing that works with CC license readers, or Rich Snippets, or . . .

# [23:49] <AryehGregor> I'm not worried about individual authors saying "Let's use RDFa, that sounds great!" I'm worried about organizations with some clout basing new de facto standards on it.

# [23:55] <hsivonen> or s still very much alive depending on point of view

# [23:56] <AryehGregor> If the W3C said "Hey, we decided RDFa is a bad idea, use microdata instead", then we could say to Creative Commons "Hey, why don't you encourage people to use microdata instead of RDFa? The W3C says so!"

# [23:56] <hsivonen> AryehGregor: I observe that the W3C didn't stop work on XForms when it invited HTML5 (incl. Web Forms 2.0) in